Curriculum Reform in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Colorado Dr. Lee D. Peterson Professor and Chair Aerospace Engineering Sciences [email protected]

Curriculum Reform in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Colorado

Dr. Lee D. PetersonProfessor and ChairAerospace Engineering [email protected]

Presentation to Aerospace Engineering DepartmentPennsylvania State University18 November 2004

LDP 17 November 2004 2

Presentation Outline

• Overview of AES Department

• Curriculum 2000

• Proactive Learning in Curriculum 2000

• Implementation, Feedback, and Future Challenges


Overview of Aerospace Engineering Sciences

at CU


A Program of Excellence in Aerospace Teaching and Research

• 1947: AES created under the leadership of Prof. K.D. Wood

Recognized as early as 1954 as a “top ten” aeronautical engineering program

• 1984: CU’s “Space Initiative”

President Gordon Gee declared AES to be the “gemstone in the crown” of the Space University

• 1985-early 1990’s: Heavy investment in space related research

Research funding of $200K in 1984 grew to $5.7M in 1990

• 1995-1996: Formulation of “Curriculum 2000” undergraduate program

Implemented beginning in 1997

• Present day:

25 regular faculty

429 undergraduate students (up 11% in 1 year)

133 graduate students

$11M research funding in 2003$14M in research awards in 2003


National Ranking among other Aerospace Departments

• 1995 National Research Council ranking

13th overall

1st in improvement over preceding five years

Next review in 2005

• 2004 US News ranking

9th among public universities, 13th overall

1. MIT2. Ga Tech3. U. Michigan4. CalTech5. Stanford6. Purdue7. U. Illinois8. Princeton9. U. Maryland10.U. Texas11.Penn State12.U. Washington13.CU

1. MIT2. Ga Tech3. U. Michigan4. CalTech5. Stanford6. Purdue7. U. Illinois8. Princeton9. U. Maryland10.U. Texas11.Penn State12.U. Washington13.CU


Rich Tapestry of Research in Aerospace Engineering and Science

• Research Centers within the Department

• BioServe

• Center for Aerospace Structures (CAS)

• Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR)

• Research and Engineering Center for Unmanned Vehicles (RECUV)

• Other faculty research outside of the centers

• Atmospheric modeling (Earth and planetary)

• GPS applications

• Fluid mechanics and aerodynamics

• Control

A NASA SponsoredResearch Partnership Center

Mission In partnership with industry, academia

and government, develop products through space life sciences research

that benefit NASA and the public.

INDUSTRY ACADEMIA

GOVERNMENT


PayloadsMission Launch Duration Flown (MLE) 1. STS-37 Apr 91 6 1 (1) 2. STS-43 Aug 91 9 1 (1) 3. STS-50 Jun 92 14 1 (2.5) 4. STS-54 Jan 93 6 1 (4) 5. STS-57 Jun 93 10 2 (5) 6. STS-60 Feb 94 8 3 (8.5) 7. STS-62 Mar 94 14 1 (2) 8. STS-63 Feb 95 8 4 (12.5) 9. STS-69 Sep 95 11 1 (2)10. STS-73 Oct 95 16 2 (3)11. STS-77 May 96 10 4 (11.5)12. STS-79 / Mir Sep 96 128 1 (1)13. STS-83 Apr 97 4 1 (2)14. STS-94 Jul 97 16 1 (2)15. STS-86 / Mir Sep 97 128 1 (1)16. STS-95 Oct 98 9 1 (2)17. STS-93 Jul 99 5 1 (3)18. STS-106 Sep 00 12 1 (1)19. STS-100 / ISS Apr 01 101 1(1)20. STS-108 Dec 01 12 1(4)21. STS-110 / ISS Apr 02 72 1(1)22. STS-112 / ISS Oct. 02 60 1(3)23. STS-107 Jan. 03 16 1(1)24. 13P – Progress Jan. 04 1(0.5)

24 missions 34 (75)

Space Flight ProgramHistory


400 m

Center for Aerospace Structures (CAS)

Large Scale Computational Structural Analysis

Large Space Structure Design

Precision Deployable Space Structures

MEMS

Structural Acoustics


0 1020304050

8

0

-8

4

-4

Impulse Number

Micro-Lurch (microns)Dimensional Error Band

Load PathManageme

nt

Microdynamicshttp://sdcl.colorado.edu

Micro-Lurch

Optically Precise Deployed Space Structures


• Precision orbit and attitude determination & control• Remote sensing of ice, land, and atmosphere• Space debris detection, tracking, and prediction

Applications of GPS technology• Ocean surface wind vectors• Soil moisture• Ocean and land topography

•Ocean remote sensing and modeling•Gravity field recovery •Hydrology, sea level

Currents in the Gulf of MexicoTOPEX/ERS-2 Analysis, Aug 7, 2001

Currents in the Gulf of Mexico, July 27, 2004


Research and Engineering Center in Unmanned Vehicles (RECUV)

• Vision

• A university, government, and industry partnership dedicated to advancing knowledge and capabilities in using unmanned vehicles for:

Scientific data collection and modeling

Mitigation of natural and man-made disasters e.g., wild-fires, pollution, etc.

Defense against terrorist and hostile military activities


Storm TrackMobile Radar

UAV1

Mobile UAV Ground StationVisualization

Center

UAV2

PRE-TORNADIC

STORM

Smart Sonde

Ground Sensors

Fixed Radar

TORNADIC STORM

Sat-Com • Chase and seed storms with airborne sensors• Place ground sensors in key positions along tornado track• Control UAVs remotely from a safe distance

RECUV Focus Concept: TornadoChaser In-Situ Sensing in Severe Storms


Curriculum 2000


Curriculum 2000: A Rigorous Education within a Practical Context

• 1995-1996: Curriculum reformulation phase

• Inputs from employers, alumni, students, faculty

Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Ball

• Key Elements

• Hands-on laboratories and design exercises integrated within the fundamentals

• Adoption of active learning methods

• Extensive use of ITLL

• Senior Capstone

• 1997-2003: Implementation Phase

• Support from Lockheed-Martin and CCHE (Colorado Commission of Higher Education)

Similar elements adopted by

MIT’s CDIO initiative

Similar elements adopted by

MIT’s CDIO initiative


CU’s Integrated Teaching and Learning Laboratory

• College of Engineering and Applied Science facility

• Used by all departments

• AES C-2000 significant fraction of use

• Undergraduate focused lab space

• Centered on hands-on curriculum

• Designed 1994-1997

• Student and faculty cooperative development

• Opened April 1997

I hear I forget, I see I Remember, I do I

Understand


AES Curriculum 2000 Objectives

• Establish a core curriculum

• Integrate topics in this core

• Make the curriculum relevant to applications

• Make the curriculum experiential hands-on

• Integrate communications and teamwork skills

• Provide more curricular choice in upper division

• Implement continuous improvement procedures


Philosophical Basis for C-2000: Knowledge & Curriculum

• A technical curriculum must address each component of knowledge:

• Conceptual

• Operational

• Integral


Conceptual Knowledge

• Basic facts and observations

• “Heavy” objects fall faster than “light” objects

• Physical laws and principles

• Force Acceleration

• Diagrams and schematics

• Mathematical representation

2

2i

ii

m

d xf m

dt

⎧ =⎪⎨

=⎪⎩

∑

∑

F a

x1

x2

W

T


Operational Knowledge

• Formulation and Analysis Conceptual

• Requirements? Constraints? Initial conditions? Symmetries?

• Methods and Strategies

• Analytical (closed-form or approximate?)

• Computational

• Skills and Resources

• Computing Group dynamics

• Library Internet


Integral Knowledge

• Conceptual + Operational = Integral

• Synthesis enables design

• Practicum provides opportunity to build and test

• Integral knowledge is essential for design

• The foundation of new technology

• Unique to the engineering profession

• Given the why and how—what?


Knowledge & Technology

Conceptual KnowledgeConceptual Knowledge

Objects fall to earth

The rate of change in the falling speed is independent of the object weight

:

Operational KnowledgeOperational Knowledge

W

D+

Integral KnowledgeIntegral Knowledge

TechnologyTechnologyconstV tΔ Δ =

m=∑F a

yD W ma− =

m=∑F a


How was C-2000 developed?

• 1994-95

• Initial formulation

All courses set aside

Curriculum rewritten

• 1995-96

• “Design Reviews”

Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Ball

• External Advisory Board established

• Spring 1996

• Faculty vote

• 1996-97

• Faculty implementation retreat(s)

• Lab hardware development

• Fall 1997

• Sophomore Year implemented for Class of 2000

• Old curriculum “grandfathered” for Class of 1998-1999

• 1997-2003

• Revision, updates, iteration

• Sr Projects restructuring completed 2003


Curriculum 2000 Lower Division


Curriculum 2000 Upper Division


Sophomore Year: 2000-Series (Fall)

• ASEN 2001 Intro to Statics Structures and Materials

• Analytical tools for statics and structural analysis in context of the physics of aerospace materials

• Force/moment equilibrium, truss analysis, beam theory, stress and strain, material structure, alloy phase diagrams, polymers, ceramics, composites, and aerospace structural design

• ASEN 2002 Intro to Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics

• Fundamental concepts and principles of thermodynamic and fluid systems

• Properties of a pure substance, conservation of energy: 1st law for closed systems and flow systems, aerodynamic forces and dimensional analysis, 1-D incompressible and compressible flow, two-dimensional flow: lift and drag, viscous flow


Sophomore Year: 2000-Series (Spring)

• ASEN 2003 Intro to Dynamics and Systems

• Introduces the principles of particle and 2-D rigid-body dynamics, vibrations, systems, and controls

• Kinematics, kinetics, energy methods, systems modeling, and simple feedback control

• ASEN 2004 Aerospace Vehicle Design and Performance

• Introduces design and performance analyses of aircraft and spacecraft

• Aircraft: wings, propulsion, cruise performance, stability and control, structures, and preliminary design

• Spacecraft: orbital mechanics, orbit and constellation design, rocket equation and staging, launch systems, and spacecraft subsystems


2000-Series TypicalBi-weekly Curriculum Block

• Unit quiz basis for preparation and classroom activities

• Group exercises synthesize concepts and methods in a relevant applications

• Conventional homework

• Individual exam

• Concurrent experimental and design laboratories

WeekMonday

(110 min)

Tuesday

(75 min)

Wednesday

(110 min)

Thursday

(75 min)

1Experiment

&

Design Lab

Unit Quiz, Discussion and

Lecture Experiment

&

Design Lab

Group Exercise, Discussion and

Lecture

2Homework Solutions,

Consolidation and Review

Exam


Upper Division Courses

• To maximize multidisciplinary opportunities, no professional electives required to be AES courses

• All junior AES courses include a laboratory component

• Capstone Senior Projects is a year-long synthesis and practicum course with design, build, and test requirement

• Senior Projects sequence is focus of proposed vertical curriculum integration


Senior Projects: Traditional Aerospace Product Development Cycle in 2 Semesters

• Semester 1: Design Synthesis

• RR/PDR - Oral

• CDR - Oral and Written

• Semester 2: Design Practicum

• Integration

• Test and Verification

• Final Report - Oral and Written

• Student teams

• Pick their own projects

• Manage their teams

• Resources from both internal and external

• Faculty are mentors and evaluators

• 2 per student team, meeting with groups 1 hour per week

• Faculty sit on review panel for design reviews and progress reports

2004-2005 AES Sr Projects

FAAST - Formula Adaptive Airfoil and System TechnologyHAVUC - Heavy-lift Aerial Vehicle for the University of ColoradoHORS - Human Powered HelicopterICARUS - In-Canister Accelerated Recoverable Unfolding Surfaces Gliding UnitMaCH-SR1 - Multi-Disciplinary University of Colorado High Altitude Student RocketSAVE - Search Air Vehicle Experiment SLOPE - Skier Location and Performance ExperimentSTARCraft- Short Takeoff Autorotation CraftKurt

2004-2005 AES Sr Projects

FAAST - Formula Adaptive Airfoil and System TechnologyHAVUC - Heavy-lift Aerial Vehicle for the University of ColoradoHORS - Human Powered HelicopterICARUS - In-Canister Accelerated Recoverable Unfolding Surfaces Gliding UnitMaCH-SR1 - Multi-Disciplinary University of Colorado High Altitude Student RocketSAVE - Search Air Vehicle Experiment SLOPE - Skier Location and Performance ExperimentSTARCraft- Short Takeoff Autorotation CraftKurt


Vertical Integration: An Essential Part of the AES Educational Experience

Student Designed Experiment

Student Built Prototype

Flight Application

AES junior fabricating electronics

ME Master’s student assembling hardware

AES PhD student working on the theory


Proactive Learning in Curriculum 2000

Courtesy of Prof. B Argrow


A Proactive Philosophy

Instruction and learning begin with teacher and student preparation. The classroom is not the place for teachers to display how much they knowit is the place to learn what students do not know so those things become known.


Teacher Motivation

• Faculty are motivated…

…to minimize load, maximize quality

…by a tangible reward structure

…by professional respect

…by student respect

…by self respect


Student Motivation

• Many students...

…are not motivated to do what is good for them

reading in preparation for lectures

homework

early exam preparation

…are motivated to avoid negative consequences, particularly if the consequences are immediate

low grades

negative peer pressure


Teacher Preparation

• Pick the appropriate text

• Criticizing the text is a waste of time

• Know the text and know your stuff

• Prepare to ad-lib (oxymoron?)

• Definite, but flexible, plan

• Syllabus contract

• Learning goals instead of material coverage


Student Preparation

• You are responsible for your learning

• Being Smart is not Enough*

• Reading is fundamental—not intended for homework excerpts

• Work outside the proverbial box

• Don’t be constrained by “coverage”

• Why are there references at the end of the chapter?

*D. Dilaura


Teachers in the Classroom

• Learn last names

• Ms. & Mr. for “friendly” formality

• Emphasize good character, integrity, and ethical behavior

• Discuss engineers’ social responsibilities

• Require attendance

• Respect students (those that deserve it)


Students in the Classroom

• Respect your teacher (we deserve it)

• Bring necessities, e.g., book, calculator, pencil, good attitude...

• Respect your classmates

• Respect property


Sensors & Tools

• Unit Quiz

• Preparation is serious because it counts

• Gives immediate feedback (get ‘em while they’re hot)

• Outlines the “lecture” by promoting discussion

• Helps teacher prepare to ad-lib

• Keep it simple, but fundamental

• Conventional lecture still appropriate


Sensors & Tools

• Group exercises

• Integral knowledge through synthesis

• Group dynamics

• Exciting and contemporaneous

• Professional identity

• Reduces grading

• Biweekly Exams

• Test individual mastery

• Discourage “cramming”


Sensors & Tools

• Homework

• Minor portion of course grade

• Question of the day

• Reconnects the math-science-engineering disconnect

• Class log and e-mail updates

• Summary of the day’s activities

• Reflection and hindsight

• Complete account of course activities

• Complements class website


A Proactive Classroom

• Preparation reduced, satisfaction increased

• Classroom is energized

• Students appreciate your effort and, more importantly, their effort

• Students more responsible and responsive

• Students display greater depth of knowledge


Implementation, Feedback and Future Challenges


How did we do it?

• Key implementation elements

• Small class size in 1995

• ITLL

• Prof. R Seebass

Dean, CEAS

Chair, AES

• Money

• Committed faculty

• Committed students

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fall Semester

Undergraduate Enrollment

C2000 Initiated (Class of 2000)


Theory vs Reality

• Theory

• Integrated curriculum relies on course co-requisite

• “Lab time” supplements “lecture”, not merely repeat or reinforce it

Introduce new material in “Lab” time

• “Lab time” increases depth of course material

• Reality

• Non-uniform faculty buy-in

Tendency to default back to “lecture based” traditions

• Inefficient use of labs

Some tendency to revert to “demos” rather than proactive labs

Design labs are hard to do ... But very valuable to the students


Challenges and Compromises

• Team teaching

• A rewarding new paradigm for AES

• Assessment

• Graduate surveys, student review team

• Comprehensive course assessements

• Diligence

• Resources and Facilities

• Unilateral reform at a state university

• ITLL space limitations and laboratory expendibles

• Increased TA need—quantity and quality

• External funding


What do our alumni think?

• “I grew up hearing my father (MIT BS EE '67) brag about how great MIT was because how hard they were forced to work and how well they were forced to understand both fundamentals and applications. Well, I never have felt for one instant that I would have been one bit better off by going to MIT. And after my father has witnessed my experiences at CU, neither does he.”

• “From talking with colleagues and friends of mine who had graduated from schools in different states, I have come to realize that the curriculum at CU was not the norm. They are surprised to hear how quickly I began the ‘real’ aerospace classes and the type of work that I did in them. The number of hands-on labs is something that impresses them.”

• “ I truly believe that CU's Aerospace curriculum has pushed me to want to be an engineer of high standards. Because I worked so hard and learned so much at CU, I won't settle for anything less here, and I think Lockheed appreciates that. Outside of whatever technical information I learned at CU, I learned how to be an engineer and what it takes to get things done correctly. ”


Alumni Comments (Cont)

• “If I were to say one thing about the curriculum, is that Senior Projects was probably the most useful class to prepare students for the ‘Business Engineering’ world -i.e. the world where money matters and design changes must go through processes. When I was interviewing for positions at Honeywell they were very interested in what we did in that "class", particularly the exposure to CDR's, PDR's, and the Implementation of delta CDR's, and I believe my discussion of prior knowledge to these coming straight out of school had a huge effect on [Honeywell’s] decision to hire me.”

DRAFT-Sat Senior Project (2003-2004)Drag-free microsat prototype


Alumni Comments (Cont)

• “Wonderful brain candy! My time at CU has shown me many things or studies. Outstanding teachers!”

• “It challenged me. It was very demanding, which shows that if I can finish this degree, I can accomplish anything I want to in life.”

• “The research opportunities! No other undergraduate institution comes close to CU in ASEN!”

• “The new curriculum rocks!”

• “The faculty and advising is awesome. There are so many research opportunities if you are willing to ask, and the faculty is more than happy to help you out. I am still impressed by the fact that professors I had during my sophomore year still make the effort to speak with me in the hallway and know my name. Professors who know their field and actually care about the learning experiences of the students are a major credit to the University.”


What do their employers think?

• “Much of our work is classified, and the domain knowledge needs to be gained once cleared. However, the discipline, ability to learn new skills/domains, and problem solving skills that the engineers bring from CU allow these graduates to ramp up to speed quickly. They tend to be over-achievers that I can always count on to do what is needed for my program to be successful. I am always excited to get a CU-Aero grad onto my team.”

• “The quality of your students really impressed me! In the past several years, I have interviewed or reviewed several hundred candidates, and I can categorically state that this is first time that I have found such a large percentage of high quality candidates all in once place.”


Conclusions and Future Initiatives

• Opportunity to employ a proactive teaching and learning philosophy

• Increased student-faculty contact hours

• Curriculum lauded by academic peers, industry, advisory boards, and students

The investment of effort has definitely been worth the outcomes.

Documents

Curriculum Reform in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Colorado Dr. Lee D. Peterson Professor and Chair Aerospace Engineering Sciences [email protected]